All I can say in response is, yes, that's pretty much what one in your position would be expected to argue...

Yes, that's pretty much all you can say in response, but just because you expected me to argue that doesn't invalidate my position. You didn't really offer much substantive criticism. And I'd expect someone in your position to argue what you're arguing, so I'm frankly not sure what your train of thinking here is.

...making a plea to accept your position as reasonable with no arguments built around evidence...

Arguments from analogy are perfectly reasonable.

This doesn't mean we jump up and down and declare that life was definitely engineered.

It doesn't mean that we try to sneak this into the classroom.

But it does mean that it makes sense to be suspicious that agency has played a role in the origin of life.

...and with no hint of recognition that your position's infinite regression leads to theological questions of ultimate origins...

There is no "infinite regression" in my position. That's more anthropocentric ideology. There is nothing that suggests that non-code-based self-replicators cannot emerge on other planets. I suspect that it is creationists who first instilled this belief in the overall debate over life's origin, with the bizarre argument that if scientists cannot presently explain how life arose that god must have done it.

But let's think this through in more depth. What is it about life that leads me to suspect agency was involved in its origin? It is the presence of a genetic code, coupled to the fact that life -- at its core -- makes use of molecular machinery that smacks of rational design not reflective of hodge-podge Neo-Darwinian co-option scenarios. There is more to this suspicion, but this is a start and will help clarify my point.

At this point, you think my suspicion necessarily entails an appeal to the supernatural (or that it ultimately must do so through infinite regression). But that can only be true if self-replicating systems unlike what we find here on Earth could not have ever emerged elsewhere in the cosmos. On the one hand, you feel like I must appeal to the supernatural -- to an utterly unknown entity. But if I can appeal to an unknown entity, why must that entity be supernatural? Why can't it be perfectly and utterly natural?

After all, we know that there are myriads of possible non-biological, non-genetic-code-based self-replicators. One need only examine the research of Rebek and colleagues (see, e.g., [1] and [2]) to understand that the analogs of genetic codes, bipartite complementarities found in nucleic acids, and ribosomes are hardly needed for the existence of non-biological autocatalytic systems. Their model is based on principles of self-complementarity -- an elegantly minimalistic pathway to non-biological, molecular evolution. Such a model is similar in principle to the non-computationally-intensive Penrose block replicators (see, for example, [3]).

Much more could be cited here as it pertains to self-replicating systems that are quite unlike biological life on Earth, such as dendrimers [4] and zeolites [5].

The point here is rather straightforward. Your argument that my position necessarily entails an infinite regression to a god is hard to entertain when one considers that either (a) my position must resort to something we know absolutely nothing about (gods and such), or (b) it can resort to phenomena we actually have some knowledge and documentation about (non-code-based self-replication). I see no reason why option A is the only option, and nor have you made a case for that.

Just as the Earth's history is recorded in the rocks, life's history is recorded in the cells. About Earth's history Faith likes to call geological strata "stacks of rocks" as if they contain no evidence of time and process, and you seem to be making a very similar argument about life.

C'mon, Percy. You know very well that the geological evidence for common ancestry is magnitudes more robust than any historical evidence you can muster for life's origin through non-teleology.

That's more anthropocentric ideology. There is nothing that suggests that non-code-based self-replicators cannot emerge on other planets.

So then, that would be some natural origin?

I suspect that it is creationists who first instilled this belief in the overall debate over life's origin, with the bizarre argument that if scientists cannot presently explain how life arose that god must have done it.

Yes, that's pretty much all you can say in response, but just because you expected me to argue that doesn't invalidate my position.

Your position isn't invalid - it's unsupported by any evidence, and that's why you're arguing in the way you are. I see now that you're focused solely on design in life's origin, not design generally in life that would include the design of each species and so forth.

Arguments from analogy are perfectly reasonable.

Analogies are explanatory aids, not evidence.

This doesn't mean we jump up and down and declare that life was definitely engineered.

It doesn't mean that we try to sneak this into the classroom.

This might be more accurate if you were referring only to yourself. This isn't true of most of your fellow travelers.

But it does mean that it makes sense to be suspicious that agency has played a role in the origin of life.

Again, you have no evidence. There's nothing to be suspicious of.

There is no "infinite regression" in my position. That's more anthropocentric ideology. There is nothing that suggests that non-code-based self-replicators cannot emerge on other planets.

That's your argument? That life based upon "non-code-based self-replicators" arose elsewhere in the universe, that intelligent life eventually emerged there, then they traveled here and created "code-based self-replicators"?

Do you have evidence that life based upon "code-based self-replicators" can't arise naturally or at least not here? Any evidence that life based upon "non-code-based self-replicators" *can* arise naturally? Some explanation of how such life might even work? Do you have any arguments based upon evidence instead of analogies and an overactive imagination? (We'll leave aside science-fictiony interstellar travel.)

If any of the people you cite (Rebek, etc.) believe as you do then you should bring the evidence they offer in support into the discussion.

Just as the Earth's history is recorded in the rocks, life's history is recorded in the cells. About Earth's history Faith likes to call geological strata "stacks of rocks" as if they contain no evidence of time and process, and you seem to be making a very similar argument about life.

C'mon, Percy. You know very well that the geological evidence for common ancestry is magnitudes more robust than any historical evidence you can muster for life's origin through non-teleology.

C'mon yourself. Faith likes to ignore the geological evidence for geological history, and in similar fashion you like to ignore the biological evidence for life's history. The evidence for both geological and biological history peters out the further back in time you go, but we don't conclude from lack of this type of evidence that aliens built the Earth or created life. We instead seek other avenues of evidence. There's no *evidence* of design in any stage of life on Earth, including its origins.

Let's suppose that life on Earth could not have plausibly originated without the intervention of agency. Does it follow that no life form could ever originate through non-agency? Absolutely not. Extrapolating a conclusion based on life on Earth to all possible self-replicating systems is rather nonsense.

So then, that would be some natural origin?

Yes, of course. It seems as if non-teleologists have succumbed to the relentless propaganda of creationism which says that if life on Earth could not have arisen without design, then a god -- and only a god -- must be invoked.

Non-teleologists would do well to take a page out of the papers of Japanese scientists Yokoo and Oshima (1979) and Nakamura (1986) -- arguably more or less immune to the right-wing, fundamentalist propaganda of American creationism.

These researchers sought to test the hypothesis that extraterrestrial messages could be found in the genomes of simian virus 40 and bacteriophages. Their investigation was motivated by SETI, not by gods -- and if such a message had been found, the conclusion would have lead to natural, extraterrestrial intelligence without appeals to the supernatural.

Let's suppose that life on Earth could not have plausibly originated without the intervention of agency.

Let's have good reasons for what you're proposin' supposin'. What conditions make agentless abiogenesis possible elsewhere and impossible here?

It seems as if non-teleologists have succumbed to the relentless propaganda of creationism which says that if life on Earth could not have arisen without design, then a god -- and only a god -- must be invoked.

At least it is possible to understand their motivation. Heaven only knows your reasons for wanting code-based self-replicators here on Earth to have been designed and created by non-code-based self-replicators from another star. One could make sense of it if there were some compelling evidence, or heck, even non-compelling evidence, but there's only stories and analogies.

Your position isn't invalid - it's unsupported by any evidence, and that's why you're arguing in the way you are.

Then you misunderstand my position. My position is not that life was definitely engineered. My position is not that there is strong, direct evidence for life's origin through agency. Rather, my position is that there is a reasonable basis for the hypothesis of rational engineering in life's origin, contrary to the rather loud clamoring of some non-teleologists who insist that any hypothesis of design springs from religious motivation.

I see now that you're focused solely on design in life's origin, not design generally in life that would include the design of each species and so forth.

Search my post history on EvC. I've never argued for the direct design of all biological species. That would fly in the face of present scientific evidence.

Analogies are explanatory aids, not evidence.

Analogies are more than just explanatory aids. Analogous reasoning is useful in scientific discovery (e.g., in archeology; see Lewis-Williams, 1991, and Wylie 1982). So while analogies cannot function as direct evidence, they have a proper role in providing a robust basis for hypothesis discovery and creation.

Thus, Darwin made analogy the thrust of his argument for the origin of species through variation and selection, by drawing a comparison between domestic breeding through artificial selection and the natural evolution of species (Levine, 2007; Haig, 2013).

"Analogy reasoning, besides the possibility of suggesting scientific metaphors, also guides the scientific creativity in the proposal of new theoretical models capable of providing theoretical explanations of open problems," writes Rivadulla in a 2008 publication (Rivadulla, 2008), and cites numerous examples of the use of analogous reasoning in scientific discovery and hypothesis generation. Examples include the proposal of the shell model of the nucleus, stimulated by analogies with the atomic shell model; other examples from theoretical physics are brought to the front, as well.

Citing the utility of analogy in shedding light on the wave model of electrons, Rivadulla notes that: "As this experiment shows, analogy serves to provide a theoretical interpretation of a surprising experimental outcome, and it is the basis of an abductive inference to the best explanation of the experimental result."

Examples of analogous reasoning to serve as the rational basis for scientific hypothesis creation abound in the biological sciences. For example, Margulis' endoysmbiotic hypothesis was stimulated on the basis of Wallin's observations concerning the similarities between the cytological properties of mitochondria and bacteria.

And, of course, numerous other examples could be raised from the history of science. As Henry Margenau (1950) noted:

"Historical evidence indicates that all sciences start upon the correlational level and evolve progressively toward the theoretic stage. At any given stage, no science is entirely correlational and none is entirely theoretic. Nevertheless, if there is a significant methodological distinction it is this, that a science is either predominantly correlational or predominantly theoretic."

As the non-religiously-motivated suspicion of engineering in life (or what may properly considered a SETI endeavor rooted in molecular biology) is in its infancy, where does such a notion fall -- is it predominantly correlational or predominantly theoretic? While some tentative theoretic models have been suggested (see, e.g., my own essay at EvC, "Nature's Engines and Engineering"), more work needs to be done in this area. So the notion of teleology in biology is more correlational than theoretic, but the strong analogies between life's molecular fabric and actual engineered technology does mean that there is a perfectly rational basis for postulating a hypothesis of agency in the origin of life.

That's your argument? That life based upon "non-code-based self-replicators" arose elsewhere in the universe, that intelligent life eventually emerged there, then they traveled here and created "code-based self-replicators"?

Do you have evidence that life based upon "code-based self-replicators" can't arise naturally or at least not here?

You're needlessly re-directing the line of discussion. The entire point behind noting that non-code-based self-replicators exist and can plausibly evolve into intelligent entities was to refute this notion that any design hypothesis concerning life's origin must necessarily invoke gods. And that's a point you're not really responding to.

Any evidence that life based upon "non-code-based self-replicators" *can* arise naturally?

Umm, there's nothing that makes the origin of self-complementary, imperfectly self-replicating molecules arising under natural (that is, non-technological) conditions implausible. This idea is far more credible than looking to what we absolutely know nothing about -- the notion of gods.

Some explanation of how such life might even work? Do you have any arguments based upon evidence instead of analogies and an overactive imagination? (We'll leave aside science-fictiony interstellar travel.)

You're, again, misdirecting the line of discussion. Do you have any solid, robust arguments as to why my position necessarily entails the supernatural?

C'mon yourself. Faith likes to ignore the geological evidence for geological history, and in similar fashion you like to ignore the biological evidence for life's history.

Eh, I hardly ignore the biological evidence for life's history. I rely on such evidence every day for making robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses.

The evidence for both geological and biological history peters out the further back in time you go, but we don't conclude from lack of this type of evidence that aliens built the Earth or created life.

You're arguing from analogy, but it's a poor one at that. The evidence for geological evolution is in a distinctly different category then any evidence you can possibly muster for a non-teleological origin of biological life.

We instead seek other avenues of evidence.

Then present your non-science-fiction-y evidence that life arose on Earth through non-teleological mechanisms.

Let's suppose that life on Earth could not have plausibly originated without the intervention of agency.

Let's have good reasons for what you're proposin' supposin'. What conditions make agentless abiogenesis possible elsewhere and impossible here?

Not the point of my response to Edge. I said "Let's suppose that life on Earth could not have plausibly originated without the intervention of agency" to make the point that design hypotheses for the origin of life on Earth need not lead to any infinite regression.

It seems as if non-teleologists have succumbed to the relentless propaganda of creationism which says that if life on Earth could not have arisen without design, then a god -- and only a god -- must be invoked.

At least it is possible to understand their motivation. Heaven only knows your reasons for wanting code-based self-replicators here on Earth to have been designed and created by non-code-based self-replicators from another star.

Sure, you understand their motivation, but you've also fallen prey to their theological propaganda.

I see now that you're focused solely on design in life's origin, not design generally in life that would include the design of each species and so forth.

Search my post history on EvC. I've never argued for the direct design of all biological species.

Thanks for the information.

That's an excellent essay on analogies, but it only repeats at much greater length my point that analogies are an aid to understanding, not evidence. That something looks designed is not evidence. Faith makes the same mistake when she argues that the layers of the Grand Canyon fairly shout Flood.

It's fine if you think you have enough hints and analogies to justify a serious exploration for evidence, but your hints and analogies are not themselves evidence, and you can't expect others to find them compelling in the way that you apparently do.

So the notion of teleology in biology is more correlational than theoretic, but the strong analogies between life's molecular fabric and actual engineered technology does mean that there is a perfectly rational basis for postulating a hypothesis of agency in the origin of life.

I don't myself, and I think this is true of most scientists and engineers, divide the world into teleogists and non-teleogists. Most of us are just "show me the evidence and skip the nonsense and handwaving" kind of guys.

The entire point behind noting that non-code-based self-replicators exist and can plausibly evolve into intelligent entities was to refute this notion that any design hypothesis concerning life's origin must necessarily invoke gods. And that's a point you're not really responding to.

I never mentioned infinite regressions or gods in my last message. I dropped that argument once you began arguing that life here was designed by life elsewhere that arose naturally. You seem to have misinterpreted my requests for evidence for your "hypothesis" as arguments about infinite regressions and gods. That's not what they were. You had just stated that there were only the two steps of life elsewhere designing life here, and that's the argument I replied to. The questions stand: do you have any evidence that anything like this ever happened? Any evidence at all?

It's okay for you to take hints and analogies and announce that you believe them sufficient justification for investigation. No one can take away your right to feel this way. But you evidently feel the need to persuade others to feel the same way, and the clear answer you're getting is that you need some evidence.

By the way, the argument, "It's not right to lump me in with all those other shyster guys making similar arguments, I'm different," isn't particularly compelling, either.

Eh, I hardly ignore the biological evidence for life's history. I rely on such evidence every day for making robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses.

"Robust hypotheses" is your term. Self-boosterism is never a good sign. You sound like Trump. Instead of telling us how great your thinking and ideas are and how much you rely upon evidence, show us. Give us a sign.

Let's suppose that life on Earth could not have plausibly originated without the intervention of agency.

Let's have good reasons for what you're proposin' supposin'. What conditions make agentless abiogenesis possible elsewhere and impossible here?

Not the point of my response to Edge. I said "Let's suppose that life on Earth could not have plausibly originated without the intervention of agency" to make the point that design hypotheses for the origin of life on Earth need not lead to any infinite regression.

Every time evidence is requested your answer is, "I was making a different point." Actually introducing real evidence into the discussion doesn't seem to be your point anywhere in this discussion.

Sure, you understand their motivation, but you've also fallen prey to their theological propaganda.

Another evidence-free assertion.

As near as I can tell the rationale for your position runs like this: The existence of biological codes and the resemblance of biological mechanisms to machines and factories and assembly lines and so forth justifies the hypothesis that life on Earth was designed and did not evolve naturally. But life must have evolved naturally somewhere. This last argument is included for fear of the infinite regression, and the presence of this argument proves there are no theological motives. There's no actual evidence at this point.

I see you complained about the comparison to Trump in your Message 512 over at the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread. I didn't know you were sensitive to comparisons to Trump, so I withdraw the comparison and replace it with, "Self-praise is not a virtue and in this instance is mere empty assertion."

You're apparently unbothered by comparisons to Faith, so I'll mention that when Faith's ideas are challenged she starts finding problems with people, even provoking them. Do you have arguments beyond, "I think hints and analogies justify making this an area of active research"? Do you have any ideas for where such research would even start?

--Percy

PS - I"m "more-or-less insulated from the negative effects" of a Trump candidacy? Really? I think most people have an opposite opinion, that rare is the person not at threat. If Trump is elected then the maxim "Head for the hills" comes to mind, but with his thumb on the nuclear button no hill would be safe.

Thanks for your response. To be clear, when I stated that "I hardly ignore the biological evidence for life's history. I rely on such evidence every day for making robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses," the "robust hypotheses" I was referring to had nothing to with intelligent design or self-praise. It was in reference to published and ongoing molecular phylogenetics research relevant to bacterial systematics. The hypotheses are "robust" because, well, statistics and stuff.

The point I was making there is that I fully accept and am well-aware of the biological evidence that maps out life's history. I am completely aware, too, that no robust ID hypotheses have been proposed.

IMHO, you seem slightly paranoid and/or confused about my intentions here, and continually drawing comparisons between my arguments and Faith's appears to be a rhetorical ploy that doesn't really serve much of a purpose beyond your own attempts at provocation. It's rather off-putting and frankly unnecessary. But whatever.

You're apparently unbothered by comparisons to Faith, so I'll mention that when Faith's ideas are challenged she starts finding problems with people, even provoking them.

Well, I don't know -- I'm not the one who thought that drawing comparisons between one's debate opponent and a racist misogynist backed by Klansmen was a good idea.

Do you have arguments beyond, "I think hints and analogies justify making this an area of active research"?

Right now? Nope. Well, other than my argument that design hypotheses don't have to lead to invocations of the supernatural.

Do you have any ideas for where such research would even start?

I don't have the time right now to discuss in depth the various arguments I've raised that suggest agency in the origin of life and/or potential research programs. Those discussions have been carried out in depth at EvC. See here, here, here, here, and here. When I have time to present my other lines of thinking, I'll put up a post here at EvC.

Thanks for your response. To be clear, when I stated that "I hardly ignore the biological evidence for life's history. I rely on such evidence every day for making robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses," the "robust hypotheses" I was referring to had nothing to with intelligent design or self-praise. It was in reference to published and ongoing molecular phylogenetics research relevant to bacterial systematics. The hypotheses are "robust" because, well, statistics and stuff.

Yes, precisely, bragging about your knowledge and thinking instead of giving us demonstrations of it.

I am completely aware, too, that no robust ID hypotheses have been proposed.

Good to know - I thought you were trying to convince us there were.

Well, I don't know -- I'm not the one who thought that drawing comparisons between one's debate opponent and a racist misogynist backed by Klansmen was a good idea.

Yeah, right, that was the context here, racism and misogynism, not ceaseless self-promotion without factual foundation.

Well, other than my argument that design hypotheses don't have to lead to invocations of the supernatural.

How many times do I have to remind you that I dropped that argument as soon as you argued that life here was designed by life elsewhere that arose naturally? You haven't so far been able to offer any support for that possibility. Your position now seems to be, "I have disproved the charge of theological motives by offering up this possibility but will not be addressing the expressed concerns about its lack of factual foundation."

See here, here, here, here, and here. When I have time to present my other lines of thinking, I'll put up a post here at EvC.

And when you do I'll read them, but for now I'll note that people with robust arguments can state them succinctly, and that greater length and detail are often just a smokescreen for hiding the absence of substance. The original question in this thread is why evolutionists can't see that the robustness of ID arguments invalidates accusations of theological motives, but you just said there are "no robust ID hypotheses," so just what more is there to say?

By the way, isn't the solar system just a giant clock? Must have been designed.

Yes, precisely, bragging about your knowledge and thinking instead of giving us demonstrations of it.

I don't decide if a hypothesis is "robust." The statistics do. That's not bragging. That's statistics.

Good to know - I thought you were trying to convince us there were.

Whatever gave you that idea? In the future, maybe don't assume what someone is arguing.

Yeah, right, that was the context here, racism and misogynism, not ceaseless self-promotion without factual foundation.

Geez, Percy, you can't even admit that saying I "sound like Trump" was in bad taste. Check your damn privilege. You're insulated from most of the negative effects of a Trump candidacy, so you're fine with throwing around comparisons with Trump. Not everyone is insulated, Percy. And don't for a second think that your concern of "his hands on a nuclear button" ever rivals the lived experiences of others.

How many times do I have to remind you that I dropped that argument as soon as you argued that life here was designed by life elsewhere that arose naturally?

You asked explicitly if I had any other arguments beyond the analogies being discussed. I answered that question by affirming that my one other argument was related to theology and the origin of life.

You haven't so far been able to offer any support for that possibility. Your position now seems to be, "I have disproved the charge of theological motives by offering up this possibility but will not be addressing the expressed concerns about its lack of factual foundation."

My only intent was to refute the idea that any design hypothesis necessarily leads to an invocation of the supernatural.

The original question in this thread is why evolutionists can't see that the robustness of ID arguments invalidates accusations of theological motives, but you just said there are "no robust ID hypotheses," so just what more is there to say?

I'm not sure that anyone is saying that there is more to say.

By the way, isn't the solar system just a giant clock? Must have been designed.

You've made this discussion more hostile than anticipated (let me guess: in a classically socially awkward manner, you're going to draw more comparisons between me and Faith, right?). Our conversation here is over, as far as I'm concerned (obviously, you can reply all you want, but it won't be a good use of my time to engage in that line of discussion).

Yes, precisely, bragging about your knowledge and thinking instead of giving us demonstrations of it.

I don't decide if a hypothesis is "robust." The statistics do. That's not bragging. That's statistics.

No, that was you making unsupported assertions that you "hardly ignore the biological evidence of life's history," and that you "rely on such evidence every day for making robust molecular evolutionary hypotheses." When challenged the story suddenly changed and the robust hypotheses weren't about ID but were "in reference to published and ongoing molecular phylogenetics research relevant to bacterial systematics," and that "the hypotheses are 'robust' because, well, statistics and stuff." Whatever you really meant, instead of claims of how substantially your thinking is based upon evidence and how strong your hypotheses are, it would be better to just attempt to demonstrate those claims through your discussion in this thread, and then let people make up their own minds.

To me you appear to be not only ignoring the evidence of life's history, but ignoring it while it's being called to your attention. We know the power of mutation and selection, it's unambiguously obvious throughout life's history, but you ignore it as you consider the transition from life to non-life and instead baldly state that DNA couldn't have emerged naturally.

Then when attempts are made to call your attention to what appear be self-promoting statements and evasions we get stuff like this:

Yeah, right, that was the context here, racism and misogynism, not ceaseless self-promotion without factual foundation.

Geez, Percy, you can't even admit that saying I "sound like Trump" was in bad taste. Check your damn privilege.

You seem to be drawing upon a deep well of privilege yourself, that you should be able to behave in any self-interested way you like without challenge. Your claims of offense are distracting from the topic, something that to me is pretty offensive in itself. Claims that can't be supported should be dropped, but aspersions shouldn't be cast at others merely for committing the sin of trying to get you to support your claims.

You asked explicitly if I had any other arguments beyond the analogies being discussed. I answered that question by affirming that my one other argument was related to theology and the origin of life.

But that's fine if your motivations for seeking design in nature are theological. It's just not science, and it certainly isn't a scientific justification for considering the hypothesis of non-natural origins for natural phenomena.

You haven't so far been able to offer any support for that possibility. Your position now seems to be, "I have disproved the charge of theological motives by offering up this possibility but will not be addressing the expressed concerns about its lack of factual foundation."

My only intent was to refute the idea that any design hypothesis necessarily leads to an invocation of the supernatural.

And when your refutation was challenged you ignored that challenge, continue to ignore it, and are evading like crazy. I ask you once again, what is the factual foundation for your supposed refutation? By what evidence and reasoning do you conclude that life on Earth could not have arisen naturally? What is the difference between life here and life elsewhere that tells you that natural origins are impossible here but possible elsewhere? Conjectures that you just toss out without consideration or evidence can't be refutations of anything. This is what you said in Message 66:

Genomicus in Message 66 writes:

The strong analogies between life's molecular fabric and actual engineered technology does mean that there is a perfectly rational basis for postulating a hypothesis of agency in the origin of life.

I say your "refutation" has no rational basis, you say it does, so come on, back it up. You can't just claim how nice and wonderful everything you say is, you have to show it.

I'm not sure that anyone is saying that there is more to say.

Actually, it is me who has been very strongly and emphatically saying that there is more to say. You threw out some cockamamie hypothesis that you then claimed was a refutation of the infinite regression. I'm asking you to back it up with evidence and argument. If there *is* no evidence and argument then you are right, there is nothing more to say.

You've made this discussion more hostile than anticipated...

You're claiming offense again. When did you start believing that you just saying something makes it true, or just feeling something makes it valid? The hostility here is all you: Dance around the attempts to engage with your claims until you can grasp onto something you label offensive then exit in high dudgeon. Great act.